Dec 17, 2013

Commentary at http://ace.mu.nu/archives/345787.phpJudgment excerpt.COGAN, District Judge. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "ACA"), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), requires that group health insurance plans cover certain preventative medical services without cost-sharing, such as a copayment or a deductible. Pursuant to regulations subsequently issued, the preventative services that must be covered include contraception, sterilization, and related counseling (the "Coverage Mandate" or "Mandate"). Certain religious employers, primarily churches, are exempt from this requirement. Further, the Government has recently promulgated regulations that seek to accommodate the religious objections of "eligible organizations," namely religious non-profits. Under this accommodation, "eligible organizations" do not have to pay for a health plan that covers contraceptive services; instead, an eligible organization must provide its issuer or third party administrator ("TPA") with a self-certification form stating its objection to the Mandate on religious grounds. The issuer or TPA is

Case 1:12-cv-02542-BMC Document 116 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 3985 2 then required to provide contraceptive coverage without charging the eligible organization any fees or premiums, and without imposing any cost-sharing on the beneficiary.

Plaintiffs are six New York-area organizations affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. Plaintiffs state that their Catholic beliefs prohibit them from providing, subsidizing, facilitating, or sponsoring the provision of contraception, sterilization, or abortion-inducing products and services. The Mandate, they argue, requires them to violate these core religious beliefs, regardless of the exemption for religious employers or the accommodation for eligible organizations. Plaintiffs bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") and Administrative Procedures Act, as well as under the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment.

Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment as to all of their claims, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against enforcement of the Mandate against them. Defendants have cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their RFRA claims is granted in part and denied in part, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

excerpts
Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.
The New York Post investigation reveals that Saudi agents, officials and operatives in Virginia, Florida, California and D.C. provided direct support by way funding or intelligence to those involved in bringing down the towers.
Karl Denninger at the Market Ticker succinctly argues that this was, in fact, an act of war:

It’s obvious given what happened, the logistical and funding requirements and where the hijackers came from along with inexplicable actions immediately following the attacks – unless our government explicitly let certain people flee.
Yet we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan while helping the Saudis — the very people who attacked us.
And Obama, to this day, kisses the Saudi King.

Over three thousands Americans are dead – yet President Obama bows to Saudi King Abdullah, whose government had direct ties to 9/11 hijackers